I will admit that while I have identified myself as a feminist from a very young age (I had pro-choice buttons on my backpack in middle school {yeah I was a trouble maker, how did you know?}) I really didn't get too into the community and any kind of activism until much later, like, college. I worked with the Women's Program at the American Friend's Service Committee as a co-op in my sophomore year of college. I learned a great deal there that I hadn't known before, and I'll admit, there were only two women (out of five) in the office who were under the age of thirty at the time, myself and the other volunteer intern. Even the two of us were radically different in age, I being an undergrad and her almost finished grad school.
One thing I didn't learn about was the weird age/generation/wave schism that rears its head in the feminist blogosphere pretty regularly.
(Note: I noticed some icky framing of race issues in this linked article, Suzie essentially saying that since there have been women of color in power positions at NOW, that arguing for a woman of color to get the presidency of said organization is not a valid argument. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me, which is almost sadder than the fact that she didn't realize she said it. I hate expecting this shit from other white feminists. I really do.)
I find this entire discussion to be singularly odd, and particularly unhelpful and not constructive in the least.
It seems to mostly take form as a discussion about "second-wave" feminism and "third-wave" feminism, and the Perpetual Battle For The Mantle Of Feminist Leadership of the two incarnations. It almost always comes down to older women v. younger women, with a fairly arbitrary divide over who is considered "older" or "younger." Now me, I was not aware that I was part of a movement and the follower of a philosophy that required me to find a label and snuggle down in my little box with it.
I know there are issues with the movement and hierarchies within it. I criticize them myself, and some of the greatest activist voices I know of are regular critics of those flaws. That is part of the liberation process. No anti-oppression group/organization/philosophy is born whole from the head of Zeus as a perfect entity. Any group we form as people living within a kyriarchical society is going to contain echoes of said kyriarchy. When it is all you know, and you have been soaking in it for the whole of your existence, then the unconscious part of it, the things that don't personally hurt you, will carry over until you recognize and deal with them. That is one of the biggest functions of privilege. How the member of that group and those it purports to serve deal with that is a measure of many things.
I continue to own the label of "Feminist" because I feel it is my job as a relatively privileged person, to work to improve the movement. Its a tough job, and all I can find the energy to focus on is the issues of how race, transphobia, and heteronormativity still inform so much feminist discourse. I don't have time to even work on anything else and I have less to do in many ways than some of the other people I have met who do more.
So why do so many feminists make the whole "second-wave" v. "third-wave" issue so huge? With all the shit we have to work on in our own movement, is it really necessary to have a generation gap with economically, racially and gender privileged people on each side stomping their foot about how "no one understands me!" when people of color, trans*people, poor people, and every permutation in between of possible intersections of those and other ignored groups in this movement are still sitting outside the glass dome?
My understanding of these labels is that they are used in a historical context to help differentiate the goals of certain generations of anti-oppression movements. I dislike them being used at all because they are limiting in the extreme. I thought this whole thing was about rejecting the labels used to reduce us and our work. Was I wrong? Or are you?
Y'all can fight each other, but I have shit to do, like fucking try to fix things in this world. Any time you want to stop navel gazing and complaining about how you deserve respect from someone you haven't earned it from, and stop making it about you, I'll be over here with the rest of us pulling your load for you.
Showing posts with label privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privilege. Show all posts
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Illegal People
I have been stewing about this for weeks. Its more conceptual than specific event-based, so its harder to articulate.
Have you ever thought about how we talk about people?
There are a lot of discussions in various social settings where certain words and phrases are dismissed as being "just a word" or "meaningless" when their problematic nature is discussed. This is a fight that I have had with even the most progressive of folk, many of whom will not acknowledge that words have power. Words define the world around us. What words we use, and what they mean to different people is vitally important, because even if a word means nothing to you, this doesn't mean it has no meaning ever. How we talk about people and things shapes our conceptions of those people and things. How we talk about them also shapes our discourse in regards to these things, and allows us to define people, often without their input.
Which brings me to what I want to talk about here: immigration, immigrants, the words we use when we discuss them and how that perpetuates racist stereotypes and myths about immigrants, and specifically immigrants who are also POC. As Liss pointed out the immigration dialog in this country is usually based in racism and she quotes Professor Ojito of Columbia University:
First, there is the list of assumptions that come with the word "immigrant." For the most part, in a societal context and in political discourse, when the word "immigrant" is used, it indicates "those" people. You know what I'm talking about, the brown people who just need to "learn English 'cause this is America, dammit!" and are "taking our jobs away and draining our health care system and contributing to rising crime, and...and DESTROYING OUR PERFECTLY WHITE WAY OF LIFE GODDAMMIT!" Nevermind that pretty much all of this vitriol is a mythical brown boogieman cooked up in the fevered imaginations of paranoid white people.
The thing that gets me the most, is the term "illegal immigrant." Its a term that can be heard all over US conservative talk radio, and it seems to have joined the popular lexicon here. This creates a serious problem, by describing people as illegal instead of describing their actions which were illegal. People can't be illegal, and to position them as such is dehumanizing and leads to easy justification for violence and other atrocities.
And make no mistake, a good deal of this discourse in the US can be traced directly to white supremacist groups. (Seriously, if you click no other link in this entire post, click this one!)As much as there seems to be a habit of dismissing words as "just words" in conjunction with an apathetic handwave, words mean things, and rhetoric can have deadly consequences. I have linked to only one recent instance, but there are many more every day, encompassing crimes against humanity including rape, torture and gruesome death.
So, for discussion sake, how do you see racist rhetoric in discussions about immigration in your country? What are some of the myths surrounding immigrants?
Have you ever thought about how we talk about people?
There are a lot of discussions in various social settings where certain words and phrases are dismissed as being "just a word" or "meaningless" when their problematic nature is discussed. This is a fight that I have had with even the most progressive of folk, many of whom will not acknowledge that words have power. Words define the world around us. What words we use, and what they mean to different people is vitally important, because even if a word means nothing to you, this doesn't mean it has no meaning ever. How we talk about people and things shapes our conceptions of those people and things. How we talk about them also shapes our discourse in regards to these things, and allows us to define people, often without their input.
Which brings me to what I want to talk about here: immigration, immigrants, the words we use when we discuss them and how that perpetuates racist stereotypes and myths about immigrants, and specifically immigrants who are also POC. As Liss pointed out the immigration dialog in this country is usually based in racism and she quotes Professor Ojito of Columbia University:
"The debate, as it is framed now, has become a strictly anti-Hispanic immigration battle cry. And nothing rallies this nation quicker and more efficiently than the presence of an alien. Particularly one who is also considered ``illegal.''"
First, there is the list of assumptions that come with the word "immigrant." For the most part, in a societal context and in political discourse, when the word "immigrant" is used, it indicates "those" people. You know what I'm talking about, the brown people who just need to "learn English 'cause this is America, dammit!" and are "taking our jobs away and draining our health care system and contributing to rising crime, and...and DESTROYING OUR PERFECTLY WHITE WAY OF LIFE GODDAMMIT!" Nevermind that pretty much all of this vitriol is a mythical brown boogieman cooked up in the fevered imaginations of paranoid white people.
The thing that gets me the most, is the term "illegal immigrant." Its a term that can be heard all over US conservative talk radio, and it seems to have joined the popular lexicon here. This creates a serious problem, by describing people as illegal instead of describing their actions which were illegal. People can't be illegal, and to position them as such is dehumanizing and leads to easy justification for violence and other atrocities.
And make no mistake, a good deal of this discourse in the US can be traced directly to white supremacist groups. (Seriously, if you click no other link in this entire post, click this one!)As much as there seems to be a habit of dismissing words as "just words" in conjunction with an apathetic handwave, words mean things, and rhetoric can have deadly consequences. I have linked to only one recent instance, but there are many more every day, encompassing crimes against humanity including rape, torture and gruesome death.
So, for discussion sake, how do you see racist rhetoric in discussions about immigration in your country? What are some of the myths surrounding immigrants?
Thursday, March 05, 2009
"Conscience": Its Like "caring" but ...not.
Obama administration is working to repeal DHHS regulation that prevents health care organizations that receive federal funds from firing or refusing to hire health care workers who refuse to dispense medical care for "moral" reasons. Still wishy-washy on actual "conscience" clauses which allow health care workers to refuse medical care in the first place. Important distinction: what is being repealed is the idea that a clinic that provides family planning services could fire someone who refuses to dispense birth control for their refusal. What is not being repealed is their supposed right to refuse care. This concept of conscience clauses and right to refuse care can and does apply to much more than reproductive health. Doctors could refuse to see or touch gay or trans patients, pharmacists could refuse to dispense medications to people who are transitioning, EMTs could withhold lifesaving measures from someone they found "repulsive" and claim conscience.
What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience? When does your right to feel good about yourself become more important than someones life!? How the bleeding burny fuck CAN you feel good about yourself knowing that you harmed someone and/or actively contributed to their death?!
The only answer I can come up with to explain it is hate.
You hate anyone who lives a life you don't agree with. You hate them to the point that possibly letting them die is a-okay for you because they aren't really people anyway. Women who want to make their own decisions about their reproduction? Not people. Queer folk who live openly? Not people. Transpeople who just want the chance to be themselves? DEFINITELY not people. Multiply these sentiments by several hundred if the aforementioned women/queers/transpeople are not white, or are poor, or live in a "developing" country, or don't fucking speak English, or don't try REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to be as "normal" as possible or any number of things that add to your smug feeling of superiority that masks insecurity, fear and hate.
This is the difference between you and me, you so-called "moralists." I want everyone to have the right to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent others from doing the same. You? You only want people like you to have that chance. In my perfect world, you would be allowed to have your life, and your opinions still. The only difference is that you would not be able to dictate the life of anyone besides yourself.
In your perfect world, I wouldn't even exist.
I refuse to lay down and die so you and yours can live in your perfect world.
What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience? When does your right to feel good about yourself become more important than someones life!? How the bleeding burny fuck CAN you feel good about yourself knowing that you harmed someone and/or actively contributed to their death?!
The only answer I can come up with to explain it is hate.
You hate anyone who lives a life you don't agree with. You hate them to the point that possibly letting them die is a-okay for you because they aren't really people anyway. Women who want to make their own decisions about their reproduction? Not people. Queer folk who live openly? Not people. Transpeople who just want the chance to be themselves? DEFINITELY not people. Multiply these sentiments by several hundred if the aforementioned women/queers/transpeople are not white, or are poor, or live in a "developing" country, or don't fucking speak English, or don't try REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to be as "normal" as possible or any number of things that add to your smug feeling of superiority that masks insecurity, fear and hate.
This is the difference between you and me, you so-called "moralists." I want everyone to have the right to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent others from doing the same. You? You only want people like you to have that chance. In my perfect world, you would be allowed to have your life, and your opinions still. The only difference is that you would not be able to dictate the life of anyone besides yourself.
In your perfect world, I wouldn't even exist.
I refuse to lay down and die so you and yours can live in your perfect world.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Slide...
I have been accused of many things. I'm big on the subjectivity of reality, so I tend to own the things I have been accused of as other people's interpretations of my behavior, even if I feel they are false. If I can understand how someone would interpret me in a certain way, then I can understand their perspective and then YAY DIALOGUE!
There is one thing though, that I stand by whole heartedly and will never compromise on, that I am accused of regularly, either overtly or covertly, and that is being confrontational. In this vein, I have been told that I'm too militant, that I'm too angry, that I care too much, that I have a chip on my shoulder, that I'm too mean to listen to and that I don't know how to pick my battles.
I actually get that last one a lot, that I have to learn how to pick my battles. I don't know how to just let some things sliiiiiiiiide.
I tend to hear this complaint when I am making the person/people I am with uncomfortable for various reasons, usually tied either to the fact that I am challenging their perspective directly or I am annoying/angering someone else in the situation and that worries and/or upsets my friend(s)/family member(s). Now, in order to be fair to my spouse, this sentiment is not always meant in the same way. When zie says it, zie also qualifies that zie thinks I am over-extending myself and zie doesn't want to see me crash into a depression or exhaustion cycle. I know that some of my family sees it similarly. Even in those cases though, there is one concept that underlies every single motivation for someone telling me to just "relax." There is always the implication that whatever I am speaking about or against is just not worth the effort of being...excited about, angry about, worked up, or even just caring about.
*snort*
My question always ends up being why. Why should I let it slide? Because I can't change it? Because you don't care about it? Because its easier to ignore it? Because you would rather coddle someone who says something ignorant?
I have been told not to confront someone who casually use the word "faggot" to describe someone because everyone just wanted to get on with the chat we were having. When I called him out though, the majority of the people in the chat were behind me. He eventually threw a fit and left, calling me a troll in the process. (LOL IZE NOT TROLLIN' ROFL) My friend who ran the chat tried to get me to stop calling him out on his abusive language to avoid discomfort for this one jerk with a bigoted perspective despite the fact that the vast majority of the group was uncomfortable with his presence and his language. So why did his comfort trump all of ours? Why is kicking up a fuss in these situation looked down on, while someone who is using language that actually contributes to lower quality of life for actual people is supposed to be just left alone? Why is reminding people of basic rules of civility that we all should have learned in kindergarten a shameful act but insulting others protected as sacred opinion?
Underneath this and a laundry list of other situations like it, continues to flow that basic idea: some issues are not worth fighting for. ignore it and it'll go away. You are just one person, you have no real power. Submit to it cause its going to happen anyway.
I say FUCK THAT. Yeah, nothing will change if you sit on your hands and say nothing about it. These things don't just fade away on their own. How many times in history has something changed because the group of people negatively affected sat quietly and politely waited their turn? How many institutional oppressions have been solved by just letting it sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide? And before anyone starts, yes, calling out individuals is part of addressing institutional oppression. These institutions are built and informed by our society and have various cultures issuing from them. One of the ways to combat it is to let people know that this culture they have accepted is damaging to real people and that these people have the right to live their lives free of this damage. What happens when you call out bigots? They learn that their behavior is not accepted nor encouraged by everyone. What happens when we stay silent? they think there is nothing wrong and that people agree with them.
Silence changes nothing. Silence is one more way to be complicit in these on going structures. Yes, we must choose our battles. I have chosen mine. My battle is not to let hatred against me or those I love pass by unremarked upon. You think my battle doesn't matter? Keep it to yourself.
There is one thing though, that I stand by whole heartedly and will never compromise on, that I am accused of regularly, either overtly or covertly, and that is being confrontational. In this vein, I have been told that I'm too militant, that I'm too angry, that I care too much, that I have a chip on my shoulder, that I'm too mean to listen to and that I don't know how to pick my battles.
I actually get that last one a lot, that I have to learn how to pick my battles. I don't know how to just let some things sliiiiiiiiide.
I tend to hear this complaint when I am making the person/people I am with uncomfortable for various reasons, usually tied either to the fact that I am challenging their perspective directly or I am annoying/angering someone else in the situation and that worries and/or upsets my friend(s)/family member(s). Now, in order to be fair to my spouse, this sentiment is not always meant in the same way. When zie says it, zie also qualifies that zie thinks I am over-extending myself and zie doesn't want to see me crash into a depression or exhaustion cycle. I know that some of my family sees it similarly. Even in those cases though, there is one concept that underlies every single motivation for someone telling me to just "relax." There is always the implication that whatever I am speaking about or against is just not worth the effort of being...excited about, angry about, worked up, or even just caring about.
*snort*
My question always ends up being why. Why should I let it slide? Because I can't change it? Because you don't care about it? Because its easier to ignore it? Because you would rather coddle someone who says something ignorant?
I have been told not to confront someone who casually use the word "faggot" to describe someone because everyone just wanted to get on with the chat we were having. When I called him out though, the majority of the people in the chat were behind me. He eventually threw a fit and left, calling me a troll in the process. (LOL IZE NOT TROLLIN' ROFL) My friend who ran the chat tried to get me to stop calling him out on his abusive language to avoid discomfort for this one jerk with a bigoted perspective despite the fact that the vast majority of the group was uncomfortable with his presence and his language. So why did his comfort trump all of ours? Why is kicking up a fuss in these situation looked down on, while someone who is using language that actually contributes to lower quality of life for actual people is supposed to be just left alone? Why is reminding people of basic rules of civility that we all should have learned in kindergarten a shameful act but insulting others protected as sacred opinion?
Underneath this and a laundry list of other situations like it, continues to flow that basic idea: some issues are not worth fighting for. ignore it and it'll go away. You are just one person, you have no real power. Submit to it cause its going to happen anyway.
I say FUCK THAT. Yeah, nothing will change if you sit on your hands and say nothing about it. These things don't just fade away on their own. How many times in history has something changed because the group of people negatively affected sat quietly and politely waited their turn? How many institutional oppressions have been solved by just letting it sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide? And before anyone starts, yes, calling out individuals is part of addressing institutional oppression. These institutions are built and informed by our society and have various cultures issuing from them. One of the ways to combat it is to let people know that this culture they have accepted is damaging to real people and that these people have the right to live their lives free of this damage. What happens when you call out bigots? They learn that their behavior is not accepted nor encouraged by everyone. What happens when we stay silent? they think there is nothing wrong and that people agree with them.
Silence changes nothing. Silence is one more way to be complicit in these on going structures. Yes, we must choose our battles. I have chosen mine. My battle is not to let hatred against me or those I love pass by unremarked upon. You think my battle doesn't matter? Keep it to yourself.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Quick Hit: Misogyny Where You Least Expect It
Another one for the "You have got to be fucking kidding me!" file.
I love StumbleUpon. You want to lose a whole night of productivity? StumbleUpon. I have found some awesome sites and amazing images through this lovely concept.
Unfortunately there is no way to request things that are not written by idiots who say sexist things.
If you follow the link, you will find a blog post about the worlds deepest pool, which looks amazingly awesome. One problem though, the sub-title of the post.
Anyone else see the problem here?
...
...
No?
Ummmm...is it absolutely necessary to advertise an amazing place with the suggestion that its a great place to kill a woman who cheats on you?
In a world where the vast majority of murdered women are murdered by their significant others, you really thought this was appropriate? Or worse, a fun thing to joke about?
Well I know that is exactly what makes me think someone is edgy and cool, is their willingness to joke about drowning bitches who dare to fuck someone other than them. Way to go there Skippy.
I love StumbleUpon. You want to lose a whole night of productivity? StumbleUpon. I have found some awesome sites and amazing images through this lovely concept.
Unfortunately there is no way to request things that are not written by idiots who say sexist things.
If you follow the link, you will find a blog post about the worlds deepest pool, which looks amazingly awesome. One problem though, the sub-title of the post.
The Deepest Swimming Pool In The World
The last date you take your cheating girlfriend on.
Anyone else see the problem here?
...
...
No?
Ummmm...is it absolutely necessary to advertise an amazing place with the suggestion that its a great place to kill a woman who cheats on you?
In a world where the vast majority of murdered women are murdered by their significant others, you really thought this was appropriate? Or worse, a fun thing to joke about?
Well I know that is exactly what makes me think someone is edgy and cool, is their willingness to joke about drowning bitches who dare to fuck someone other than them. Way to go there Skippy.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Fame and victim blaming
Unless you have been living under a rock in the States recently, you have probably heard of the case of musical artist Chris Brown facing charges for beating the stuffing out of his girlfriend, Rhianna who is actually more widely known than he is.
Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.
I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.
No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.
As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:
This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.
Fuckers.
Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.
I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.
No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.
As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:
I don’t want to open up any dialogue right now. I don’t want to teach you. I don’t want to explain to you how women of colour are shoved in all directions when it comes to violence against women. I don’t want to teach anyone about sexism and racism in the media. I don’t want to tell you about my experiences so that you can satisfy your voyeuristic curiosity that we have been trained to have. I don’t want to make any woman, WOC or not, into a model victim. I don’t want to tell you why it’s wrong to expect that of any survivor. I don’t want to have to argue again and again why it is downright bullshit to try to take away agency from the survivor. I don’t want to explain that “the personal is political” doesn’t mean no one has a right to privacy.
I want to yell. I want to scream. I want to rage. I want to extend a hearty ‘fuck you’ to a lot of people.
I don’t give a fuck how your life has been fundamentally changed by seeing a sensationalized photograph of a domestic assault survivor.
I don’t give a fuck about her fame.
I don’t give a fuck that you want to see it too.
I don’t give a fuck that you think she has no right to privacy because she’s a celebrity.
I don’t give a fuck how lucky you now feel to have never experienced intimate partner violence just because you’ve seen it.
I don’t give a fuck that you can see the ‘upside’ of this because it’s “raising awareness.”
I don’t give a fuck about you making her into an example.
I don’t give a fuck about what you think she should and should not do about her life.
I don’t give a fuck about her abuser’s career.
I don’t give a FUCK if you think she deserved to be abused, or to have her photos spread around like a fucking Christmas card.
Fuck the people who have turned this into entertainment.
Fuck the people who have turned this into an after-school special on VAW.
Fuck the people who published it on news sites and displayed it on television (I am looking at you Entertainment Canada).
Fuck the people who posted it on their blogs, their journals, their Facebooks, MySpaces, and other social networking sites so that EVERYONE else can see it.
I give a fuck about her dignity and I am yelling about it. I give a fuck about her choices that only SHE has a right to. I give a fuck about her life. I give a fuck about her rights. I give a fuck about her privacy. I give a fuck about her, so why don’t you?
This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.
Fuckers.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
More Privileged Whiners
Apparently there can't be one damn day that isn't about us white folk:
Now, for something completely different!
Oops, sorry...
Now for some Context!
Rev. Joseph Lowery delivered the closing benediction at the Inauguration ceremony (full text is here) and the line that has some white people all in a tizzy is at the end:
Apparently, some of the privileged want cookies just for not being complete and total assholes.
Some, like a commenter at Transgriot, neeed to prove that they are soooo discriminated against because Rev. Lowery clearly thinks that we are all just evil people because of the vanilla of our skin (some by writing novels for comments.)
Nevermind that the whole section was a play on a common phrase during the Jim Crow era, when black people had to face more obvious discrimination (which, please note, is not gone, but is only more subtle now) as well as a play on a blues song of the same era. Nevermind that it in no way blames white people for anything, or is accusatory.
The reactions to this is a classic display of white privilege. We live in a culture where the default is us, where discussions are designed around our world view and way of thinking. The assumption that a black man is calling us evil by implying that whites are privileged and ignorant of the ways in which they benefit from the color of their skin is a natural conclusion when you assume that its all about YOU, which your privilege allows, nay, encourages you to do. Sounds more like a guilty conscience projecting than anything else.
Seriously, how hard is it to acknowledge that as a white person, or a person who fits within boundaries of acceptable whiteness, you get benefits that non-whites don't? How hard is it to acknowledge that a great deal of white people don't accept this and continue to benefit from the marginalization of POC?
Fucking hell. The whole world, for the most part, is catered to white people. Why exactly do so many of us lose their shit when someone dares not to pander in our direction? That is equality people. No one is demonizing you unless you are saying and/or doing something racist, or you are benefiting from someone else's marginalization. Saying shit like "well why does color HAVE to matter?" is showing your privilege yet again. It has to matter because racial inequalities still effect peoples lives, and the fact that you think it should not matter shows how little you truly know about the experiences of POC.
(from Incertus)
The discussion seems to focus on the line I used as the title for this post, the final rhyme that Lowery threw out there. Some commenters said that the line made them or friends of theirs feel slightly alienated, as though Lowery were calling out white people as the problem that all other races and ethnic groups should point fingers at in blame and accusation.
Now, for something completely different!
Oops, sorry...
Now for some Context!
Rev. Joseph Lowery delivered the closing benediction at the Inauguration ceremony (full text is here) and the line that has some white people all in a tizzy is at the end:
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.Cue the hysterical screaming, accusations of "reverse-racism" and self-righteous harrumphs.
Apparently, some of the privileged want cookies just for not being complete and total assholes.
Some, like a commenter at Transgriot, neeed to prove that they are soooo discriminated against because Rev. Lowery clearly thinks that we are all just evil people because of the vanilla of our skin (some by writing novels for comments.)
Nevermind that the whole section was a play on a common phrase during the Jim Crow era, when black people had to face more obvious discrimination (which, please note, is not gone, but is only more subtle now) as well as a play on a blues song of the same era. Nevermind that it in no way blames white people for anything, or is accusatory.
The reactions to this is a classic display of white privilege. We live in a culture where the default is us, where discussions are designed around our world view and way of thinking. The assumption that a black man is calling us evil by implying that whites are privileged and ignorant of the ways in which they benefit from the color of their skin is a natural conclusion when you assume that its all about YOU, which your privilege allows, nay, encourages you to do. Sounds more like a guilty conscience projecting than anything else.
Seriously, how hard is it to acknowledge that as a white person, or a person who fits within boundaries of acceptable whiteness, you get benefits that non-whites don't? How hard is it to acknowledge that a great deal of white people don't accept this and continue to benefit from the marginalization of POC?
Fucking hell. The whole world, for the most part, is catered to white people. Why exactly do so many of us lose their shit when someone dares not to pander in our direction? That is equality people. No one is demonizing you unless you are saying and/or doing something racist, or you are benefiting from someone else's marginalization. Saying shit like "well why does color HAVE to matter?" is showing your privilege yet again. It has to matter because racial inequalities still effect peoples lives, and the fact that you think it should not matter shows how little you truly know about the experiences of POC.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Fuck You, You Fucking Fuck
President Bush declares January 18th to be "Sanctity of Human Life Day".
Because women aren't human.
Because POC aren't human.
Because anyone of the LGBTQ, especially T, community isn't human.
Because Iraqis, Palestinians, Arabs in general, and Muslims are not human.
Only a (middle to upper-class white) fetus is human and has a right to live and this deserves a fucking holiday.
Fuck you Mr. Bush. You have overseen some of the most egregious actions and inactions by the US government resulting in the loss of human life that have happened in my lifetime, and you have the fucking nerve to pull your pud over the actions you took to treat women as incubators with legs.
Please let the door hit you on the ass on the way out the door, repeatedly if you don't mind.
Because women aren't human.
Because POC aren't human.
Because anyone of the LGBTQ, especially T, community isn't human.
Because Iraqis, Palestinians, Arabs in general, and Muslims are not human.
Only a (middle to upper-class white) fetus is human and has a right to live and this deserves a fucking holiday.
Fuck you Mr. Bush. You have overseen some of the most egregious actions and inactions by the US government resulting in the loss of human life that have happened in my lifetime, and you have the fucking nerve to pull your pud over the actions you took to treat women as incubators with legs.
Please let the door hit you on the ass on the way out the door, repeatedly if you don't mind.
The Crime of Being
Okay, this has been sitting in my head for way too long. I'm prone to depression and tend to end up in this strange fugue state where all I can do is play mindless free flash games online and try to pretend that the world is not as scary as it actually is.
What scares me?
Many things scare me; spiders, plane crashes, driving too fast (its an anxiety thing due to fear of police), losing my front teeth, water where I can't touch the bottom or see it (pools are okay, oceans and lakes? fuck that noise), getting cancer...
However, none of those things holds a candle to the fear that I feel for the lives of people that I love. I come from a position of relative privilege to them. First, my gender presentation and my body(along with the social assignment of my gender based on secondary sexual characteristics) generally match, and second, I'm white. For these people who are very dear to me, one or both of these things are not true. And what terrifies me more than the idea of driving too fast in a car filled with spiders, while on the phone with my doctor who is telling me I have cancer, just as a plane crashes in front of me, making me swerve into a bottomless lake and knock out my front teeth on the steering wheel, is the idea that for people like my friends who do not share my whiteness or my apparent cis-ness, they can be murdered for simply daring to exist, and their murderers excused because we live in a world that does not value the personhood of their victims. We live in a world that constructs my firends as mutilated freaks, sexual deviants and "faking it". They can't even lobby for laws to protect their ability to go into the bathroom that they are less likely to get assaulted in without being conflated with perverts, pedophiles, and sexual predators.
If you go back and look at the list of the dead for the Trans Day Of Remembrance, you may notice that when discussing violence against transpeople, we are talking about more that transphobia, transmisogyny, or homophobia. Considering that approximately 70% of the names on the list belong to women of color, we are also talking racism.
These cases are often treated with boxing gloves by the media and general public, with the assumption that a black transwoman must be a sex worker, and that she was probably killed when her john discovered her penis, and the persistent use of incorrect pronouns by the media, which is a basic journalistic no-no indicating more the refusal of the "journalist" to overlook their own biases while reporting. With the prevalence of the "trans panic" defense and how it seems to fly pretty well with the media and sometimes the court system, it seems pretty clear that black transwomen's lives are less valuable than the offended manhood of some schmuck that thinks that the appropriate way to react to a situation like this is killing someone. They are killed for not being the "right" kind of woman.
The media and general public opinion seems to want to construct these women as "bringing it on themselves" for "lying" about "what they really are," as if your very existence and the fact that it triggers some homophobia in the person who decided that murdering you is the only way to deal with it is your fault. When police in a city assault a black transwoman and she is later found dead, and in the same city, another transwoman is found shot three times there is clearly no official justice for these women.
In actuality, the lives of transpeople, especially transwomen of color, are in more danger than the average cis-person. Constructing transpeople as some sort of dangerous menace, beyond being insulting as hell, is factually inaccurate.
Even the cis-partners of transpeople are considered legitimate targets for this hate violence.
I have an obligation, to my friends and to my morals, to not be silent. To not let the hate of the world keep me hidden in my home, frozen and unable to act. These women were someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's lover. They could be mine, or yours. regardless of their bodies and the social constructions that others must cling to so tightly that life no longer has value, they deserve to be valued.
I will not be silent about their lives. I will not be silent about the loss of them.
What scares me?
Many things scare me; spiders, plane crashes, driving too fast (its an anxiety thing due to fear of police), losing my front teeth, water where I can't touch the bottom or see it (pools are okay, oceans and lakes? fuck that noise), getting cancer...
However, none of those things holds a candle to the fear that I feel for the lives of people that I love. I come from a position of relative privilege to them. First, my gender presentation and my body(along with the social assignment of my gender based on secondary sexual characteristics) generally match, and second, I'm white. For these people who are very dear to me, one or both of these things are not true. And what terrifies me more than the idea of driving too fast in a car filled with spiders, while on the phone with my doctor who is telling me I have cancer, just as a plane crashes in front of me, making me swerve into a bottomless lake and knock out my front teeth on the steering wheel, is the idea that for people like my friends who do not share my whiteness or my apparent cis-ness, they can be murdered for simply daring to exist, and their murderers excused because we live in a world that does not value the personhood of their victims. We live in a world that constructs my firends as mutilated freaks, sexual deviants and "faking it". They can't even lobby for laws to protect their ability to go into the bathroom that they are less likely to get assaulted in without being conflated with perverts, pedophiles, and sexual predators.
If you go back and look at the list of the dead for the Trans Day Of Remembrance, you may notice that when discussing violence against transpeople, we are talking about more that transphobia, transmisogyny, or homophobia. Considering that approximately 70% of the names on the list belong to women of color, we are also talking racism.
These cases are often treated with boxing gloves by the media and general public, with the assumption that a black transwoman must be a sex worker, and that she was probably killed when her john discovered her penis, and the persistent use of incorrect pronouns by the media, which is a basic journalistic no-no indicating more the refusal of the "journalist" to overlook their own biases while reporting. With the prevalence of the "trans panic" defense and how it seems to fly pretty well with the media and sometimes the court system, it seems pretty clear that black transwomen's lives are less valuable than the offended manhood of some schmuck that thinks that the appropriate way to react to a situation like this is killing someone. They are killed for not being the "right" kind of woman.
The media and general public opinion seems to want to construct these women as "bringing it on themselves" for "lying" about "what they really are," as if your very existence and the fact that it triggers some homophobia in the person who decided that murdering you is the only way to deal with it is your fault. When police in a city assault a black transwoman and she is later found dead, and in the same city, another transwoman is found shot three times there is clearly no official justice for these women.
In actuality, the lives of transpeople, especially transwomen of color, are in more danger than the average cis-person. Constructing transpeople as some sort of dangerous menace, beyond being insulting as hell, is factually inaccurate.
Even the cis-partners of transpeople are considered legitimate targets for this hate violence.
I have an obligation, to my friends and to my morals, to not be silent. To not let the hate of the world keep me hidden in my home, frozen and unable to act. These women were someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's lover. They could be mine, or yours. regardless of their bodies and the social constructions that others must cling to so tightly that life no longer has value, they deserve to be valued.
I will not be silent about their lives. I will not be silent about the loss of them.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Mmmmm...Cowardice in Hypocrisy Sauce
Y'all are not gonna believe this shit. Unless you've been paying attention, then it just fits perfectly with the line of bullshit spin that these groups regularly dish out.
So, the state of California has a law that requires that donations to legislative measures and political party campaigns be made public knowledge. Its an anti-racketeering law to ensure that organized crime syndicates haven't bought politicians or legislation (oh the IRONY, which will be apparent shortly.)
Several groups who have donated to the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 are suing to be exempt from this law.
"Why?" you may ask, "why would these upstanding citizens who claimed to only be protecting their own right to be bigoted and limit the rights of those they despise so worried about being known as the defenders of (their own) rights that they clearly are?"
Well, cause they claim to be afraid of "threats" such as blacklisting and boycotts. They claim that these things will violate their First Amendment rights. The AP article linked above cites other threats, like fliers calling them bigots being distributed in their neighborhoods, and threatening emails.
However, Justin McLachlan has an interesting bit of info that the Associated Press mostly ignored in their article:
BTW, Protectmarriage.com is the same group that used public campaign disclosure records to threaten a San Diego business that donated to the "No on prop. 8" before the campaign. The registration documents they want to make secret are the same ones that I used to show the campaign was being organized through a mutual benefit corporation -- California Renewal -- that the state had suspended for failing to pay taxes.
Excuse me, I need to go laugh til I puke. Gimme a second.
::exits stage right::
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
::re-enters stage right::
Ok, I think I can get through the rest of this with only minor giggling.
I have said this before but its worth repeating: the freedom of speech inherent in the First Amendment applies equally to everyone (at least it should.) Yes, people in this country have every right to give money to a piece of legislation that they agree with. People have the right to express ignorant and hateful views. However, this right DOES NOT protect them from the First Amendment rights of others. Boycotts of businesses who donated obscene amounts of money to take away your rights is also protected by the concept of free speech. Having the right to publicly be an ignorant ass does not protect you from people calling you an ignorant ass. Freedom to speak is not freedom from criticism.
Please note that I can't condone violent threats against supporters of Prop 8, but I can understand why someone would feel that angry. Acting on those threats is crossing a line into territory that I think we can still rise above.
As much as I'm sure these hypocrites would like it to not be the case, there are consequences for your actions, especially when those actions oppress others. If you were worried about your profits, you might have considered the fact that queer people and their supporters have money too, and that hitting you in your wallet is a fitting price to pay (ooh unintentional pun! HOW WITTY AM I!) for treating other people as less than a full legal person.
(h/t to Keori)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Defining Sexism
A comment on this entry at Shakesville really tweaked my interest. First, the comment:
This poster isn't the first to make this spurious argument and zie won't be the last.
Disagree however you want, but the prejudice+power definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. Perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in scientific disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we use it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. It has also been appropriated by motivational speakers for large corporations as a term to get corporate teams to expand their way of working. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception and appropriation of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means zie has read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if zie had, zie would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and do not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct at all times is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
This poster seems to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on hir part to challenge hir own small view of how the world works.
Sexism is not in the eye of the beholder
Let it be assumed for the purposes of this space, that the definition of -isms are the power+prejudice equation.
"A little off topic, but I just wanted to jump up and down a little waving my arms in frantic protest over [another poster]'s insistence that various "isms" - sexism, racism, what have you - are monodirectional.
For one thing, it's problematic because this isn't the way the vast majority of people use these words. For just about everyone (not to mention every dictionary under the sun) racism (to choose an example) is prejudice or discrimination based on race, full stop. Limiting the word to institutional prejudice or discrimination against specific racial groups in specific cultural contexts creates all kind of confusion - not least because not all the world is made up of the kind of neat binary hierarchies of oppression this kind of definition demands.
For another, society is not a monolith. Even if racism is by definition cultural and institutional, the idea that every institution and sub-culture within a society shares the same biases isn't really tenable.
To return to sexism, far simpler to say (as the OED does, actually) that it is sex-based prejudice and discrimination almost always directed against women."
This poster isn't the first to make this spurious argument and zie won't be the last.
Disagree however you want, but the prejudice+power definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. Perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in scientific disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we use it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. It has also been appropriated by motivational speakers for large corporations as a term to get corporate teams to expand their way of working. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception and appropriation of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means zie has read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if zie had, zie would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and do not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct at all times is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
This poster seems to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on hir part to challenge hir own small view of how the world works.
Sexism is not in the eye of the beholder
Let it be assumed for the purposes of this space, that the definition of -isms are the power+prejudice equation.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
What?!
(h/t to almost every progressive blog I read)
I saw this last week and had to take a second to put my jaw back in place. Christ. How fucking EDGY is The Advocate! Conflating the black civil rights movement with the LGBTQI movement and it's oh-so-important fight for marriage equality.
Look, I'm queer. As queer as a $3 bill. HOWEVER, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my relatively privileged fight for the right to marry someone of the same legal sex as myself is the last great civil rights issue! Not when institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia (to name only a few) are issues that are causing people to live in poverty, face threats of and actual physical and sexual assault from not only other individuals but from law enforcement officers, face court battles to even have their victimizers recognized as such, and...lessee...um...oh yeah! FUCKING DEATH!
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if people like me could just hang up our activist badges and go home, if there really was something that was really the last civil rights struggle ever ever ever. However, as pointed out above, this is patently untrue.
Suggesting that "Gay is the new Black" ignores the existence of queers who are also of color, who have to face racism, homophobia and sexism. It also ignores the fact that a good deal of the queer community is not served by the fight for marriage equality, and effectively disappear their members who are in need of things that are more essential than marriage.
This cover implies that all other civil rights movements are over and unimportant. The only purpose something like this will serve will be to alienate members of the POC community as well as any other groups that are not served by the marriage fight. It doesn't help that the article that this cover is in reference to is actually a decent article. This cover is a disservice to the author, and to the queer movement as a whole.
In short, fuck whoever at The Advocate thought this would be a good idea. Nice breakin' it "hero."
I saw this last week and had to take a second to put my jaw back in place. Christ. How fucking EDGY is The Advocate! Conflating the black civil rights movement with the LGBTQI movement and it's oh-so-important fight for marriage equality.
Look, I'm queer. As queer as a $3 bill. HOWEVER, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my relatively privileged fight for the right to marry someone of the same legal sex as myself is the last great civil rights issue! Not when institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia (to name only a few) are issues that are causing people to live in poverty, face threats of and actual physical and sexual assault from not only other individuals but from law enforcement officers, face court battles to even have their victimizers recognized as such, and...lessee...um...oh yeah! FUCKING DEATH!
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if people like me could just hang up our activist badges and go home, if there really was something that was really the last civil rights struggle ever ever ever. However, as pointed out above, this is patently untrue.
Suggesting that "Gay is the new Black" ignores the existence of queers who are also of color, who have to face racism, homophobia and sexism. It also ignores the fact that a good deal of the queer community is not served by the fight for marriage equality, and effectively disappear their members who are in need of things that are more essential than marriage.
This cover implies that all other civil rights movements are over and unimportant. The only purpose something like this will serve will be to alienate members of the POC community as well as any other groups that are not served by the marriage fight. It doesn't help that the article that this cover is in reference to is actually a decent article. This cover is a disservice to the author, and to the queer movement as a whole.
In short, fuck whoever at The Advocate thought this would be a good idea. Nice breakin' it "hero."
Friday, December 05, 2008
Vultures
With the horrors of the siege in Mumbai finally over, media outlets seem to be focused on one thing: sensationalizing every aspect for consumption.
All I'm seeing is blow by blow accounts of how the gunmen were smiling, the piles of corpses that started it, pictures of people wailing in fear and terror. The whole thing is making me quite ill.
Seriously, these are PEOPLE, not news stories. These are people who have lived through some of the worst things a person can live through. The terror and pain of real people is not fucking entertainment.
All I'm seeing is blow by blow accounts of how the gunmen were smiling, the piles of corpses that started it, pictures of people wailing in fear and terror. The whole thing is making me quite ill.
Seriously, these are PEOPLE, not news stories. These are people who have lived through some of the worst things a person can live through. The terror and pain of real people is not fucking entertainment.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
No Guts, No Glory
I came across this at Alas, a quote from a gentleman who blogs at Instapundit, or Instaputz as some have termed him. Behold, Glenn Reynolds:
Jeff Fecke proceeds his own takedown:
I do agree with Jeff, although, I thought to take it one step further...
Reynolds' perspective makes sense when you account for the fact that a good deal of people who are recipients of social privilege tend to quest for nothing more than personal gain, or for the hero-worship that we tend to bestow on figures who represent fundamental social progress (See Betty Friedan and her repudiation of the feminist movement because she did not get enough attention). Even their participation in social justice is for the recognition they will get for what they do, so there is little understanding of someone who does something for the benefit of more than just themselves, of someone who knows that they may never see the end result of the work that they do, but they do it regardless because someone needs to lay the bricks so that the next generation can move forward a little further.
I would argue that some people can't see any reason to be a visible activist besides the "glory," which is a symptom of the tendency to white-wash history and try to show it without full context.
If all you can remember of the civil rights movement is the so-called "glory" that came with being Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., then there are some serious gaps in your knowledge and understanding.
Granted, it was pointed out to me that the very nature of history and historical recollection is about selective editing, and therefore has gaps by definition. I don't entirely agree. I think it is possible to be honest about history to a point. We can never escape our own perspective, and objectivity is especially difficult in the arena of social movements and trends, but we are still able, and obligated, I think, to be as honest as possible when looking back.
The American practice of making shining and pure paragons of virtue out of our historical figures has been key in helping to promote the blindness of the privileged classes in this country. We forget that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, we forget that Helen Keller was a radical feminist and socialist, we forget that Woodrow Wilson was a racist SOB...etc. We want our heroes to be moral exemplars, and forget that they were only human. It only serves to obscure the historical context and reality not only of these people, but of our own time. If we cannot honestly look at the past as something more complex than simplistic children's stories, then how can we create comprehensive solutions for the present?
I would also argue that this heroification leads to the "glory" perspective, these people did the things they did to be heroes, to get the spotlight...and it distances us from our own abilities to affect change in our world. Most "heroes" were and are ordinary people doing what they see as needing to be done at the time. I'm pretty sure Harriet Tubman wasn't risking her life for attention sake, or for recognition of her "great accomplishments". Some have the chance to come in at a time when they can get a lot of attention, some are largely ignored until decades, sometimes centuries after their deaths. When the people who pushed for change are regarded as exemplars of society, "special" if you will, then we assimilate the idea that we can change nothing because we are just "normal" people, and forget that the world is changed by normal people who choose to make a stand.
I have always wanted to be one of those people who change the world. My aunt (who was more like my big sister growing up) has always said that I have an over-developed sense of justice, and a need to fix things that strike me as wrong just because they are wrong. When I was young, I not only wanted to be one of those activists we always read about, I wanted to be the Special kind, the ones that stand in front of crowds and cause a national uproar when they are arrested...I thrived on stories of heroes, and I wanted to be one. Not a comic book or cartoon hero, but a real live historical hero.
As I got older, I realized that being that public recognizable hero is only possible when the groundwork is laid, and that I couldn't just wait for the groundwork to come to me. So I started volunteering, writing, speaking, making a stand in my small high-school student way. After a few years of this, it hit me that I may never be that hero the way I initially envisioned it, but that I had a hand in making possible for one of those heroes to come forward. I am fine with putting a few bricks in the road so that the next group coming behind me can go just a bit further than I did.
When I see my twelve-year old sister taking apart the bullshit of the world designed to break her spirit and put her in her "place", and dismissing it like an annoying fly, I feel like a cape-wearing, swishy-haired, bona-fide super hero.
And that is enough for me :D
I feel a little sorry for Martin Luther King — his enormous accomplishments got less attention than they deserved because of the cult of Malcolm X, and now he’s being eclipsed by Barack Obama. Though I suppose he’d be perfectly okay with that.Uh huh...
Jeff Fecke proceeds his own takedown:
Now, we can go on and on about the utter stupidity of Reynolds pretending that W.E.B. Du Bois and Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman are now totally unimportant thanks to Obama’s victory; indeed, we can go further and note how insane it is that Reynolds would think Du Bois, Douglas, King, Malcolm X, Tubman, and the several million other African-Americans who worked for equality through our nation’s long and bitter racial history would see Obama’s victory as anything other than a positive outcome of their work.
I do agree with Jeff, although, I thought to take it one step further...
Reynolds' perspective makes sense when you account for the fact that a good deal of people who are recipients of social privilege tend to quest for nothing more than personal gain, or for the hero-worship that we tend to bestow on figures who represent fundamental social progress (See Betty Friedan and her repudiation of the feminist movement because she did not get enough attention). Even their participation in social justice is for the recognition they will get for what they do, so there is little understanding of someone who does something for the benefit of more than just themselves, of someone who knows that they may never see the end result of the work that they do, but they do it regardless because someone needs to lay the bricks so that the next generation can move forward a little further.
I would argue that some people can't see any reason to be a visible activist besides the "glory," which is a symptom of the tendency to white-wash history and try to show it without full context.
If all you can remember of the civil rights movement is the so-called "glory" that came with being Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., then there are some serious gaps in your knowledge and understanding.
Granted, it was pointed out to me that the very nature of history and historical recollection is about selective editing, and therefore has gaps by definition. I don't entirely agree. I think it is possible to be honest about history to a point. We can never escape our own perspective, and objectivity is especially difficult in the arena of social movements and trends, but we are still able, and obligated, I think, to be as honest as possible when looking back.
The American practice of making shining and pure paragons of virtue out of our historical figures has been key in helping to promote the blindness of the privileged classes in this country. We forget that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, we forget that Helen Keller was a radical feminist and socialist, we forget that Woodrow Wilson was a racist SOB...etc. We want our heroes to be moral exemplars, and forget that they were only human. It only serves to obscure the historical context and reality not only of these people, but of our own time. If we cannot honestly look at the past as something more complex than simplistic children's stories, then how can we create comprehensive solutions for the present?
I would also argue that this heroification leads to the "glory" perspective, these people did the things they did to be heroes, to get the spotlight...and it distances us from our own abilities to affect change in our world. Most "heroes" were and are ordinary people doing what they see as needing to be done at the time. I'm pretty sure Harriet Tubman wasn't risking her life for attention sake, or for recognition of her "great accomplishments". Some have the chance to come in at a time when they can get a lot of attention, some are largely ignored until decades, sometimes centuries after their deaths. When the people who pushed for change are regarded as exemplars of society, "special" if you will, then we assimilate the idea that we can change nothing because we are just "normal" people, and forget that the world is changed by normal people who choose to make a stand.
I have always wanted to be one of those people who change the world. My aunt (who was more like my big sister growing up) has always said that I have an over-developed sense of justice, and a need to fix things that strike me as wrong just because they are wrong. When I was young, I not only wanted to be one of those activists we always read about, I wanted to be the Special kind, the ones that stand in front of crowds and cause a national uproar when they are arrested...I thrived on stories of heroes, and I wanted to be one. Not a comic book or cartoon hero, but a real live historical hero.
As I got older, I realized that being that public recognizable hero is only possible when the groundwork is laid, and that I couldn't just wait for the groundwork to come to me. So I started volunteering, writing, speaking, making a stand in my small high-school student way. After a few years of this, it hit me that I may never be that hero the way I initially envisioned it, but that I had a hand in making possible for one of those heroes to come forward. I am fine with putting a few bricks in the road so that the next group coming behind me can go just a bit further than I did.
When I see my twelve-year old sister taking apart the bullshit of the world designed to break her spirit and put her in her "place", and dismissing it like an annoying fly, I feel like a cape-wearing, swishy-haired, bona-fide super hero.
And that is enough for me :D
Thursday, November 27, 2008
A Turkey Called Brotherhood
(yet another hat tip to Renee @ Womanist Musings)
This is pretty obnoxious.
Basic rundown: A pair of schools have a Thanksgiving tradition of dressing one kindergarten class up as indians and one as pilgrims. They have a parade and then go have a party together. This year, a parent who is actually native, protested this event, calling out the lie that children are being forced to believe, the lie of the peaceful coming together of white settlers with native tribes. She also protested the racist stereotypes being perpetuated by the "indian"costumes.
The thing that chaps my ass is all of these white people trying to claim that this is not offensive at ALL! That these are just CHILDREN! Enjoying a holiday TRADITION! I am so glad that these privileged asswipes can conveiniently forget that by TEACHING these children this tradition, they are continuing the myth of a benevolent white man vs the gentle savage. I really wish they would blow it right out of their asses. As the member of the group that benefits from the oppression of the other, YOU DON'T GET TO SAY WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO THEM! This is Don't Be An Asshole 101 folks.
These white people wringing their hands about telling children the truth of their history reminds me somewhat of this clip:
I normally don't like South Park all that much, but every once in a while, they have a really good point. That IS how it actually happened. This idea that white people calmly showed brown people their "better ways" in the spirit of brotherhood and Christian Godliness is blatantly false, besides being obnoxious and racist as fuck.
And if we are really going to clutch our pearls and gasp about "THE CHILDREN," consider this: what about those native children, who learn their history from the perspective of people who think that it is okay to ignore the massive damage done to their people? They learn that their history doesn't matter, only the history of the white man matters. Renee says it very well:
It is further disgusting that children are being taught this falsehood as a method of maintaining white hegemony through the physical performance of revisionist history. The indoctrination of children with revisionist history is part of the way that racism passes from one generation to another.
Of course to a child this seems like a harmless tradition, they have no knowledge of history. They count on us as adults to be their guides and tell them the truth. This is an abdication of our responsibility to educate them.
Native culture has repeatedly been appropriated. We see it show up in the form of mascots for sporting teams as a normalized display. People seem to feel that it is their right to cheapen and demean the culture of another, while telling the oppressed community that they are being too sensitive.(go read her post Teaching The Young To Disrespect Indigenous Culture. I'll wait here)
The myth of the peaceful thanksgiving is regularly offered up in order to forget that the real beginning of this country was violent, painful and bloody. What happened to the native population of this hemisphere when Europeans came here was GENOCIDE. Nothing less.
We continue this heroification of the white people who came here and supposedly built this amazing civilization out of nothing, ignoring the rape, enslavement, murder, cannibalism and early germ warfare that made all of this possible.
These lands were not "discovered" by Europeans. You cannot "discover" a place where people are already living! Many of these colonies would not have survived if not for the work already done by tribes living there previously, if not for stealing from the tribes who were still there, if not for enslaving members of these tribes, if not for living off of the decomposing bodies of natives who were killed by epidemics spread from early European explorers, if not for slaughtering whole cultures.
Whole cultures, languages, ways of life are GONE, destroyed by this idea that God gave White people dominion over the Earth.
I will be using this day to teach my children about the cultures that were here already, about what happened to them, about what their lives are like now. I do not accept this white-washing of my history.
As a kid, I always wanted to do a Weddnesday Addams when confronted with this season:
Granted, a good deal of what occurs leading up to her soliloquy is offensive as hell, which is not surprising considering it is intended to show a white privileged man's perspective of the Thanksgiving myth.
In the end, I believe we have an obligation to be honest about our history. There is no excuse for ignorance, and no excuse for degrading displays of faux "brotherhood." These myths are dangerous, despite what some may think. They allow those of us who are granted white privilege to pat ourselves on the back and escape our responsibility to end oppressions that we benefit from. They create an environment where understanding of current effects that can be traced back to these event is impossible, because without honesty in regards to our history, we have no realistic idea of the true roots of injustice. These myths create an attitude that we white western people can still charge into whatever country we want and do whatever we please because we forget that we aren't the saviors of the goddamn world. They allow us to be blind to the personhood of others, and to the actual effect we have on the world. They allow us to continue to marginalize and oppress others simply for not being one of us.
National Day of Mourning for Indigenous People
(h/t to Womanist Musings)
Following are excerpts from a statement written by Mahtowin Munro (Lakota) and Moonanum James (Wampanoag), co-leaders of United American Indians of New England. Read the entire statement at www.uaine.org.
Mahtowin Munro
Mahtowin Munro
Every year since 1970, United American Indians of New England have organized the National Day of Mourning observance in Plymouth at noon on Thanksgiving Day. Every year, hundreds of Native people and our supporters from all four directions join us. Every year, including this year, Native people from throughout the Americas will speak the truth about our history and about current issues and struggles we are involved in.
Why do hundreds of people stand out in the cold rather than sit home eating turkey and watching football? Do we have something against a harvest festival?
Moonanum James
Moonanum James
Of course not. But Thanksgiving in this country—and in particular in Plymouth—is much more than a harvest home festival. It is a celebration of pilgrim mythology.
According to this mythology, the pilgrims arrived, the Native people fed them and welcomed them, the Indians promptly faded into the background, and everyone lived happily ever after.
The pilgrims are glorified and mythologized because the circumstances of the first English-speaking colony in Jamestown were frankly too ugly (for example, they turned to cannibalism to survive) to hold up as an effective national myth.
The pilgrims did not find an empty land any more than Columbus “discovered” anything. Every inch of this land is Indian land. The pilgrims (who did not even call themselves pilgrims) did not come here seeking religious freedom; they already had that in Holland.
Leonard Peltier
Leonard Peltier
They came here as part of a commercial venture. They introduced sexism, racism, anti-lesbian and -gay bigotry, jails and the class system to these shores. One of the very first things they did when they arrived on Cape Cod—before they even made it to Plymouth—was to rob Wampanoag graves at Corn Hill and steal as much of the Indians’ winter provisions of corn and beans as they were able to carry.
They were no better than any other group of Europeans when it came to their treatment of the Indigenous peoples here. And, no, they did not even land at that sacred shrine called Plymouth Rock, a monument to racism and oppression which we are proud to say we buried in 1995.
The first official “Day of Thanksgiving” was proclaimed in 1637 by Governor Winthrop. He did so to celebrate the safe return of men from the Massachusetts Bay Colony who had gone to Mystic, Conn., to participate in the massacre of over 700 Pequot women, children and men.
About the only true thing in the whole mythology is that these pitiful European strangers would not have survived their first several years in “New England” were it not for the aid of Wampanoag people. What Native people got in return for this help was genocide, theft of our lands and never-ending repression. We are either treated as quaint relics from the past or are, to most people, virtually invisible.
When we dare to stand up for our rights, we are considered unreasonable. When we speak the truth about the history of the European invasion, we are often told to “go back where we came from.” Our roots are right here. They do not extend across any ocean.
National Day of Mourning began in 1970 when a Wampanoag man, Wamsutta Frank James, was asked to speak at a state dinner celebrating the 350th anniversary of the pilgrim landing. He refused to speak false words in praise of the white man for bringing civilization to us poor heathens. Native people from throughout the Americas came to Plymouth where they mourned their forebears who had been sold into slavery, burned alive, massacred, cheated and mistreated since the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620.
But the commemoration of National Day of Mourning goes far beyond the circumstances of 1970.
Can we give thanks as we remember Native political prisoner Leonard Peltier, who was framed up by the FBI and has been falsely imprisoned since 1976? Despite mountains of evidence exonerating Peltier and the proven misconduct of federal prosecutors and the FBI, Peltier has been denied a new trial.
To Native people, the case of Peltier is one more ordeal in a litany of wrongdoings committed by the U.S. government against us. While the media in New England present images of the “Pequot miracle” in Connecticut, the vast majority of Native people continue to live in the most abysmal poverty.
Can we give thanks for the fact that, on many reservations, unemployment rates surpass 50 percent? Our life expectancies are much lower, our infant mortality and teen suicide rates much higher than those of white Americans. Racist stereotypes of Native people, such as those perpetuated by the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves and countless local and national sports teams, persist. Every single one of the more than 350 treaties that Native nations signed has been broken by the U.S. government. The bipartisan budget cuts have severely reduced educational opportunities for Native youth and the development of new housing on reservations, and have caused cause deadly cutbacks in healthcare and other necessary services.
Are we to give thanks for being treated as unwelcome in our own country?
When the descendants of the Aztec, Maya and Inca flee to the U.S., the descendants of the wash-ashore pilgrims term them “illegal aliens” and hunt them down.
We object to the “Pilgrim Progress” parade and to what goes on in Plymouth because they are making millions of tourist dollars every year from the false pilgrim mythology. That money is being made off the backs of our slaughtered Indigenous ancestors.
Increasing numbers of people are seeking alternatives to such holidays as Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. They are coming to the conclusion that if we are ever to achieve some sense of community, we must first face the truth about the history of this country and the toll that history has taken on the lives of millions of Indigenous, Black, Latin@, Asian, and poor and working-class white people.
The myth of Thanksgiving, served up with dollops of European superiority and manifest destiny, just does not work for many people in this country. As Malcolm X once said about the African-American experience in America, “We did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us.” Exactly.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Jim Quinn Rejects Germ Theory
Is it just me, or are homophobic bigots really reaching lately?
I mean, I get it. They are against science as a rule. Earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were planted by scientists with the help of Satan as a test of faith and for personal profit, and all other scientists are just one huge secret cabal (with all this "Global Warming" and "melting ice caps" stuff) out to take away their God-Given American Right to drive the biggest, ugliest gas-guzzler imaginable, thereby confirming their status as gigantic assholes.
But sex producing a virus?
Haven't heard that one before.
So funny that all I can do is stare:
I shall name him...Quinny.
The meme of "the Gay Plague?" It's dead, Jim.
HIV causes AIDS. It is a virus that can effect anyone that comes into contact with it in a communicable fashion, generally through body fluids. Examples: blood transfusions, infected needles, sex of ANY kind between ANY partners.
I would need to find some stats to back me up on this, but I'm pretty sure that the largest infected group of people in the US is young, straight African American women. But wait, thats science again...
I mean, I get it. They are against science as a rule. Earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaur bones were planted by scientists with the help of Satan as a test of faith and for personal profit, and all other scientists are just one huge secret cabal (with all this "Global Warming" and "melting ice caps" stuff) out to take away their God-Given American Right to drive the biggest, ugliest gas-guzzler imaginable, thereby confirming their status as gigantic assholes.
But sex producing a virus?
Haven't heard that one before.
So funny that all I can do is stare:
"[G]ay marriage doesn't produce anything that the state has an interest in. Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us."
I shall name him...Quinny.
The meme of "the Gay Plague?" It's dead, Jim.
HIV causes AIDS. It is a virus that can effect anyone that comes into contact with it in a communicable fashion, generally through body fluids. Examples: blood transfusions, infected needles, sex of ANY kind between ANY partners.
I would need to find some stats to back me up on this, but I'm pretty sure that the largest infected group of people in the US is young, straight African American women. But wait, thats science again...
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Narcissistic Fool Makes His Foolishness Apparent
Okay, I was gonna avoid this, simply because it has been talked about in quite a few places already, but, frankly, I'm bored. So I will be taking that out on all of you, and of course, on the poor victim of my scathing wit.
::cue evil laughter::
Anywho, there is this gentleman, a distinguished sort, who was working as a molecular biologist at UC Irvine, which is a state school. There is this lovely little law in California, Assembly Bill 1825, which mandates that state employees holding a supervisory position must take two hours of sexual harassment training every two years.
Well, he felt that this was quite wrong, and refused to take the training unless the university would issue an official document stating that he had never sexually harassed anyone. The university refused, and took away his supervisory duties due to non-compliance with the law.
Wait now...this is where the FUN starts!
He decides to write a scathing editorial for the LA Times about the sham of sexual harassment training, in which he desperately clutches his pearls about his precious academic rights and his tenured position and how it was brutally snatched away from him by, and I quote,
::blink::
Hold on a minute...
There's that pesky "I'm so oppressed by the PC Thought Police!" thing again! Seriously, what is it with white privileged male "oppression"? That's right! I forgot, he is throwing a temper tantrum, not laying out substantive critique. Allow me to demonstrate, we can start with the above quote.
So, what "agenda" does he disagree with? The "agenda" that non-white/male/abled/straight /cis persons should be able to work in an environment free of harassment? Or the "agenda" of the state ensuring that supervisors receiving state funds know what the laws are and how to deal with situations that the laws are applicable to?
Nope.
He disagrees with the "agenda" of:
ummm...
Right.
He does know that these trainings are usually conducted seminar style, right? according to the initial article, he also could have taken the online version of the training, so that the only people who knew he had done so would be himself, and the bureaucrats who keep track of such things. That being understood, what stigma is he talking about exactly? What part of ALL state paid supervisors having to take this training did he miss? How does this create stigma again? Or is he suggesting that ALL state paid supervisors in the state of California are being accused of sexual harassment, since they ALL have to take this training?
That and there are a great many laws over the years have been offensive or violating, and people worked to change them, often times by violating the laws with full knowledge of the consequences.
As opposed to violating the laws and acting surprised that they didn't just accommodate you.
But then again, it is all about you, isn't it?
So your academic freedom hinges on you being ignorant, willfully so, of the laws regarding equal treatment in your state? wha? Your rights as a tenured professor include the right to harass? of course the university nullified your responsibility, YOU FAILED to meet the requirements that would grant you those privileges. I don't get a driver's license just because I have never run anyone over in a car, you don't get to supervise people without full knowledge of the laws that must be respected while you do your job.
Also, Professor? As opposed to 30 years ago, women are now legally people, and you are legally obligated to treat them as such, because while you seem to have missed it, society EVOLVED around you.
I'm sorry to tell you this, Professor, but for all your whinging about your precious reputation and how being asked to do something that everyone else has to do too makes you look bad, and how "you don't have to take it if you don't wanna!", the only one ruining your reputation is you.
Instead of appearing principled, you appear to be a three year old, who has thrown themselves on the ground kicking, screaming and generally causing a scene in order to cover a guilty conscience. I have a much younger sister, sir. I know the whine of "No one EVER BELIEVES ME!" and that it is an indicator of guilt.
Grow up, cause in the real world, that shit don't fly.
::cue evil laughter::
Anywho, there is this gentleman, a distinguished sort, who was working as a molecular biologist at UC Irvine, which is a state school. There is this lovely little law in California, Assembly Bill 1825, which mandates that state employees holding a supervisory position must take two hours of sexual harassment training every two years.
Well, he felt that this was quite wrong, and refused to take the training unless the university would issue an official document stating that he had never sexually harassed anyone. The university refused, and took away his supervisory duties due to non-compliance with the law.
Wait now...this is where the FUN starts!
He decides to write a scathing editorial for the LA Times about the sham of sexual harassment training, in which he desperately clutches his pearls about his precious academic rights and his tenured position and how it was brutally snatched away from him by, and I quote,
...a vocal political/cultural interest group promoting this silliness as part of a politically correct agenda that I don’t particularly agree with.
::blink::
Hold on a minute...
There's that pesky "I'm so oppressed by the PC Thought Police!" thing again! Seriously, what is it with white privileged male "oppression"? That's right! I forgot, he is throwing a temper tantrum, not laying out substantive critique. Allow me to demonstrate, we can start with the above quote.
So, what "agenda" does he disagree with? The "agenda" that non-white/male/abled/straight /cis persons should be able to work in an environment free of harassment? Or the "agenda" of the state ensuring that supervisors receiving state funds know what the laws are and how to deal with situations that the laws are applicable to?
Nope.
He disagrees with the "agenda" of:
...the state, acting through the university, is trying to coerce and bully me into doing something I find repugnant and offensive. I find it offensive not only because of the insinuations it carries and the potential stigma it implies, but also because I am being required to do it for political reasons.
ummm...
Right.
He does know that these trainings are usually conducted seminar style, right? according to the initial article, he also could have taken the online version of the training, so that the only people who knew he had done so would be himself, and the bureaucrats who keep track of such things. That being understood, what stigma is he talking about exactly? What part of ALL state paid supervisors having to take this training did he miss? How does this create stigma again? Or is he suggesting that ALL state paid supervisors in the state of California are being accused of sexual harassment, since they ALL have to take this training?
That and there are a great many laws over the years have been offensive or violating, and people worked to change them, often times by violating the laws with full knowledge of the consequences.
As opposed to violating the laws and acting surprised that they didn't just accommodate you.
But then again, it is all about you, isn't it?
The imposition of training that has a political cast violates my academic freedom and my rights as a tenured professor. The university has already nullified my right to supervise my laboratory and the students I teach. It has threatened my livelihood and, ultimately, my position at the university. This for failing to submit to mock training in sexual harassment, a requirement that was never a condition of my employment at the University of California 30 years ago, nor when I came to UCI 11 years ago.
So your academic freedom hinges on you being ignorant, willfully so, of the laws regarding equal treatment in your state? wha? Your rights as a tenured professor include the right to harass? of course the university nullified your responsibility, YOU FAILED to meet the requirements that would grant you those privileges. I don't get a driver's license just because I have never run anyone over in a car, you don't get to supervise people without full knowledge of the laws that must be respected while you do your job.
Also, Professor? As opposed to 30 years ago, women are now legally people, and you are legally obligated to treat them as such, because while you seem to have missed it, society EVOLVED around you.
I'm sorry to tell you this, Professor, but for all your whinging about your precious reputation and how being asked to do something that everyone else has to do too makes you look bad, and how "you don't have to take it if you don't wanna!", the only one ruining your reputation is you.
Instead of appearing principled, you appear to be a three year old, who has thrown themselves on the ground kicking, screaming and generally causing a scene in order to cover a guilty conscience. I have a much younger sister, sir. I know the whine of "No one EVER BELIEVES ME!" and that it is an indicator of guilt.
Grow up, cause in the real world, that shit don't fly.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Who wakes up and says, "I wish I could be oppressed too"?
I have been talking with my cousin lately. He is 15, and I have been trying to explain the mechanics of oppression, privilege and power to him in a way that doesn't make him think he is being accused of something. Frighteningly, I have had to debunk several ideas that he has picked up from Cthulhu-knows-where about how oppressed he is. After doing that, he said something really upsetting to me:
"I wish I had a struggle of my own, something to fight against."
O.o
The mind...she boggles.
Somewhere along the way, the idea that having a struggle, an oppression to fight against, was in somehow. Stylish. It got you "special rights." Either that, or the rapid loss of privileges was seen as a loss of rights.
The idea that white affluent western men are an oppressed minority is laughable. It is also a perspective that one encounters quite frequently in popular culture, and especially from so-called men's rights activists(MRAs).
Let me explain something about MRAs. These people are rarely concerned with actual rights or oppression. They are primarily concerned with maintaining the status quo, because the only way they can see the rights of men being violated is when women have those same rights.
They see rights, freedoms and opportunity as a zero-sum game, namely, if females are doing well, that means that males must be getting worse. This ties in to the problem with essentialist thinking. If one group is "naturally" better at something, but the other group is doing just as well as them in actuality, then the only way to maintain this false dichotomy, is to assume that something must be holding back the "naturally" better group.
These groups do little more than encourage the very gender essentialist notions that create the inequalities they like to scream about. They help create these structures, and then blame them on the groups that are actively trying to fight them.
They blame feminism for all of their problems, with no knowledge of what feminists and feminist groups actually do. They tend to be against any legislation that deals with domestic violence, any legislation that makes divorce easier for women, against taking the victim's side in rape cases, against women having the choice to abort or continue a pregnancy, generally against anything that doesn't include men regardless of whether they actually need it or not and tend to support using children in custody cases to control and/or threaten ex's, support rapists, and rape apologists, and generally blame women for all of their own personal failings.
They tend to spend a great deal of time spouting off inaccurate information to support the idea that a cabal of women, queers, racial minorities and evil radical feminists control everything, and may even be responsible for the fall of Western Civilization! As a result, they paint hapless white men as the unfortunate victims of an "anti-male" society that grinds them into submission under the boot heel of the Fascist PC Thought Police.
Let us examine some of this, shall we? Not too much, lest we scratch out our eyeballs in frustration.
As far as this idea of "politically correct" (scare quotes intended) as code for "uptight" or "restrictive," I don't see why it is so important to some people to be allowed to use words that create an othering effect of specific groups. One thing that must be put out there right now: complaining about being forced to be "PC" is, in essence, complaining that you can't be a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic douchenozzle without there being consequences. I seriously don't see why treating other people like the people that they are is such a damn burden. In the US, one does have the freedom to say exactly what one wants to, however, the rest of us also have the freedom to tell you that you are being obnoxious and insulting. Attempting to shame people with the sneering at political correctness indicates that you would rather be able to hurt people because you like to. This would make you, at best, a bully, and at worst, someone incredibly dangerous.
The gentleman doth protest too much is something else I want to examine here. There is a huge discussion amongst these supposed rights activists about false allegations that lead "innocent" men to being dragged through the court system and possibly imprisoned. Yet false allegations "experts" tend to turn out to be nothing more than perpetrators who are finding ways for other perps to get away with beating and raping. There has even been evidence that false allegations are more likely to come from men:
These people want to tilt at windmills to preserve their privileges to the detriment of those they consider to be lower than them. They couch their true desires in the language of empowerment, and attempt to cast themselves as some tragic victim.
There are inequalities in this world, some of which specifically effect men, and most are rooted in constructions of masculinity. To resolve those inequalities, deconstruction of gender essentialism must occur. There are people who do this, who truly work to make sure that people are seen as equal regardless of what is in their pants.
They are called feminists, and they are not your expectation.
"I wish I had a struggle of my own, something to fight against."
O.o
The mind...she boggles.
Somewhere along the way, the idea that having a struggle, an oppression to fight against, was in somehow. Stylish. It got you "special rights." Either that, or the rapid loss of privileges was seen as a loss of rights.
The idea that white affluent western men are an oppressed minority is laughable. It is also a perspective that one encounters quite frequently in popular culture, and especially from so-called men's rights activists(MRAs).
Let me explain something about MRAs. These people are rarely concerned with actual rights or oppression. They are primarily concerned with maintaining the status quo, because the only way they can see the rights of men being violated is when women have those same rights.
They see rights, freedoms and opportunity as a zero-sum game, namely, if females are doing well, that means that males must be getting worse. This ties in to the problem with essentialist thinking. If one group is "naturally" better at something, but the other group is doing just as well as them in actuality, then the only way to maintain this false dichotomy, is to assume that something must be holding back the "naturally" better group.
These groups do little more than encourage the very gender essentialist notions that create the inequalities they like to scream about. They help create these structures, and then blame them on the groups that are actively trying to fight them.
They blame feminism for all of their problems, with no knowledge of what feminists and feminist groups actually do. They tend to be against any legislation that deals with domestic violence, any legislation that makes divorce easier for women, against taking the victim's side in rape cases, against women having the choice to abort or continue a pregnancy, generally against anything that doesn't include men regardless of whether they actually need it or not and tend to support using children in custody cases to control and/or threaten ex's, support rapists, and rape apologists, and generally blame women for all of their own personal failings.
They tend to spend a great deal of time spouting off inaccurate information to support the idea that a cabal of women, queers, racial minorities and evil radical feminists control everything, and may even be responsible for the fall of Western Civilization! As a result, they paint hapless white men as the unfortunate victims of an "anti-male" society that grinds them into submission under the boot heel of the Fascist PC Thought Police.
Let us examine some of this, shall we? Not too much, lest we scratch out our eyeballs in frustration.
As far as this idea of "politically correct" (scare quotes intended) as code for "uptight" or "restrictive," I don't see why it is so important to some people to be allowed to use words that create an othering effect of specific groups. One thing that must be put out there right now: complaining about being forced to be "PC" is, in essence, complaining that you can't be a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic douchenozzle without there being consequences. I seriously don't see why treating other people like the people that they are is such a damn burden. In the US, one does have the freedom to say exactly what one wants to, however, the rest of us also have the freedom to tell you that you are being obnoxious and insulting. Attempting to shame people with the sneering at political correctness indicates that you would rather be able to hurt people because you like to. This would make you, at best, a bully, and at worst, someone incredibly dangerous.
The gentleman doth protest too much is something else I want to examine here. There is a huge discussion amongst these supposed rights activists about false allegations that lead "innocent" men to being dragged through the court system and possibly imprisoned. Yet false allegations "experts" tend to turn out to be nothing more than perpetrators who are finding ways for other perps to get away with beating and raping. There has even been evidence that false allegations are more likely to come from men:
Are Allegations of Sexual Abuse That Arise During Child Custody Disputes More Likely to Be False?
An Annotated Review of the Research
Bala, N. & Schuman, J. (2000). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separated.
Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17, 191-241.
Canadian Family Law Judgments: Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two Queen's University law professors, reviewed judges' written decisions in 196 cases between 1990 and 1998 where allegations of either physical or sexual abuse were raised in the context of parental separation. Only family law cases were considered; child protection and criminal decisions were excluded.
The study showed that the judges felt that only a third of unproven cases of child abuse stemming from custody battles involve someone deliberately lying in court. In these cases, the judges found that fathers were more likely to fabricate the accusations than mothers.
These people want to tilt at windmills to preserve their privileges to the detriment of those they consider to be lower than them. They couch their true desires in the language of empowerment, and attempt to cast themselves as some tragic victim.
There are inequalities in this world, some of which specifically effect men, and most are rooted in constructions of masculinity. To resolve those inequalities, deconstruction of gender essentialism must occur. There are people who do this, who truly work to make sure that people are seen as equal regardless of what is in their pants.
They are called feminists, and they are not your expectation.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Spirit of the Stairs
So...privilege.
It's an important, and critical idea, and one I have been dancing around trying to parse out how I want to talk about for days now. I have written and re-written this entry, and have given up on it a few times. However, as far as the intent behind this space, an understanding of privilege and how it works is needed.
The need for this was touched off by several things, some in my own life, and some in the rest of the US.
One of the personal: a gentleman who was otherwise quite nice, who felt privileged enough to say some "well-intentioned" (scare quotes intended) but profoundly homophobic things to me while I was working. It was enough to send me running for a large Americano with an extra espresso shot (for those playing the home game, that would come to four shots of espresso, with the rest of the 18oz. cup filled with steamed water) which I am now sipping and feeling the caffeine tingle to the ends of my extremities.
Another is one friend of mine who repeatedly claims that I go too far on the "female" stuff, and that he feels that I am being unbalanced because I never talk about the problems that men face, and conversely never talk about women as "being at fault" for anything. According to him, I blame men for everything, and let women coast by regardless of whether they deserve to or not. When I call him on the fact that inequalities for women outnumber inequalities for men, he hedges with "well, we should all just be good to each other, but it has to be FAIR," or if I point out that the system that hurts women also hurts men, he moves the goalposts "well some people are just LIKE THAT" or "Some women bring it on themselves."
In the rest of my country, there are simultaneous issues that are encased in layers of problematic privilege with regards to how they are addressed and with regards to the fact that they have even occurred.
One is the passing of Proposition 8 in California, which is problematic on its own. It doesn't help that it's passing is being blamed on POC voters in CA, which is exposing the latent racism of the mainstream, assimilationist GLBTQI movement (which tends to exclude all but the white, able-bodied, cis-gendered men anyway)
In combination with the utter outrage at Prop 8 is the lack of outrage from the same exclusionary GLBTQI community at the murder of yet another trans-woman of color, Duanna Johnson, a woman who had previously been harrassed and assaulted by Memphis police officers, purely because of her gender and her color, who has subsequently been found dead.
For my situation, and how it relates to privilege as well as everything I have mentioned thus far, to make sense, some things about me need to be understood.
1- Yes, I am queer.
2- Yes, I am married.
3- No, my marriage, despite current appearances, is not heterosexual.
4- I am also female-identified, white, able-bodied, poor by Western standards, and feminist without apology.
The problem here is privilege.
What is privilege, you ask?
The man who talked to me this morning was privileged. He assumed when he saw my wedding ring, that since I was married, then I must be straight. His privilege is the ability to assume that marriage is for straight people only, to assume that every person he talks to is most likely not queer, and to assume that I am going to agree with him, because only straight people can be married.
My friend is privileged. His privilege is to be able to assume that he will be included in all things, since most things in our culture tend to be geared towards straight white cis-males like himself. He assumes that his experience is universal, that all men think as he does, and that anything that goes against that is prejudiced against him. His experience must be addressed or he is oppressed. He assumes that fair looks like he wants it to without accounting for the perspective of others. He feels entitled to attention, and to care from activists that don't address his needs, despite the fact that the issues that impact them the most have little to nothing to do with him.
The racist element of the GLBTQI movement is privileged. They can assume that another minority group will support them on the basis of some assumed shared oppression without ever explicitly asking that group for support, they can pretend like there is no intersection of identities, and therefore "erase" POC who are also queer. In cases like Duanna Johnson, they are more than willing to throw our trans* brothers and sister under the bus, as well as anyone else who is not easily assimilate-able in order to further their own quest for rights, regardless if those rights are what the rest of the community actually needs.
I am privileged. I live in the West, where my standard of living as a poor person is at least three times as good as women in developing countries. I can eat food that is out of season, I have access to medicine, media, and computers. I have a job and don't have to ask my family for permission to live my life. I am also white, and can be sure, when walking down the street, that no one is assuming I am a "welfare queen" or that I am a drug addict, or a thief, or a sex-worker. My gender identity, for the most part, matches my gender presentation, so I do not get intrusive stares and speculations about what I "really" am.
My point is, despite these groups and myself all being privileged, there is one major resounding difference.
I am aware of the ways in which I am privileged and have made it a personal quest to minimize my privilege as much as possible. It's a technique that I call, "How to not be a total fucking asshole." This is not to say that I don't fuck up, I do. I will act privileged, partially because the nature of privilege is to be invisible to those who benefit most from it.
However, I am open to being called on it, and I am willing to self-examine at any time to make sure that my words and actions match with a progressive attitude towards ending oppression. It's the least I can do to make up for the benefits I get because of my privilege.
I do not call myself an ally, I don't need to be put on a pedestal as a paragon of progressiveness. I am just a person, a privileged person, who has chosen not to be an asshole.
It's an important, and critical idea, and one I have been dancing around trying to parse out how I want to talk about for days now. I have written and re-written this entry, and have given up on it a few times. However, as far as the intent behind this space, an understanding of privilege and how it works is needed.
The need for this was touched off by several things, some in my own life, and some in the rest of the US.
One of the personal: a gentleman who was otherwise quite nice, who felt privileged enough to say some "well-intentioned" (scare quotes intended) but profoundly homophobic things to me while I was working. It was enough to send me running for a large Americano with an extra espresso shot (for those playing the home game, that would come to four shots of espresso, with the rest of the 18oz. cup filled with steamed water) which I am now sipping and feeling the caffeine tingle to the ends of my extremities.
Another is one friend of mine who repeatedly claims that I go too far on the "female" stuff, and that he feels that I am being unbalanced because I never talk about the problems that men face, and conversely never talk about women as "being at fault" for anything. According to him, I blame men for everything, and let women coast by regardless of whether they deserve to or not. When I call him on the fact that inequalities for women outnumber inequalities for men, he hedges with "well, we should all just be good to each other, but it has to be FAIR," or if I point out that the system that hurts women also hurts men, he moves the goalposts "well some people are just LIKE THAT" or "Some women bring it on themselves."
In the rest of my country, there are simultaneous issues that are encased in layers of problematic privilege with regards to how they are addressed and with regards to the fact that they have even occurred.
One is the passing of Proposition 8 in California, which is problematic on its own. It doesn't help that it's passing is being blamed on POC voters in CA, which is exposing the latent racism of the mainstream, assimilationist GLBTQI movement (which tends to exclude all but the white, able-bodied, cis-gendered men anyway)
In combination with the utter outrage at Prop 8 is the lack of outrage from the same exclusionary GLBTQI community at the murder of yet another trans-woman of color, Duanna Johnson, a woman who had previously been harrassed and assaulted by Memphis police officers, purely because of her gender and her color, who has subsequently been found dead.
For my situation, and how it relates to privilege as well as everything I have mentioned thus far, to make sense, some things about me need to be understood.
1- Yes, I am queer.
2- Yes, I am married.
3- No, my marriage, despite current appearances, is not heterosexual.
4- I am also female-identified, white, able-bodied, poor by Western standards, and feminist without apology.
The problem here is privilege.
What is privilege, you ask?
Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It’s about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf.
-Betty, A primer on privilege.
The man who talked to me this morning was privileged. He assumed when he saw my wedding ring, that since I was married, then I must be straight. His privilege is the ability to assume that marriage is for straight people only, to assume that every person he talks to is most likely not queer, and to assume that I am going to agree with him, because only straight people can be married.
My friend is privileged. His privilege is to be able to assume that he will be included in all things, since most things in our culture tend to be geared towards straight white cis-males like himself. He assumes that his experience is universal, that all men think as he does, and that anything that goes against that is prejudiced against him. His experience must be addressed or he is oppressed. He assumes that fair looks like he wants it to without accounting for the perspective of others. He feels entitled to attention, and to care from activists that don't address his needs, despite the fact that the issues that impact them the most have little to nothing to do with him.
The racist element of the GLBTQI movement is privileged. They can assume that another minority group will support them on the basis of some assumed shared oppression without ever explicitly asking that group for support, they can pretend like there is no intersection of identities, and therefore "erase" POC who are also queer. In cases like Duanna Johnson, they are more than willing to throw our trans* brothers and sister under the bus, as well as anyone else who is not easily assimilate-able in order to further their own quest for rights, regardless if those rights are what the rest of the community actually needs.
I am privileged. I live in the West, where my standard of living as a poor person is at least three times as good as women in developing countries. I can eat food that is out of season, I have access to medicine, media, and computers. I have a job and don't have to ask my family for permission to live my life. I am also white, and can be sure, when walking down the street, that no one is assuming I am a "welfare queen" or that I am a drug addict, or a thief, or a sex-worker. My gender identity, for the most part, matches my gender presentation, so I do not get intrusive stares and speculations about what I "really" am.
My point is, despite these groups and myself all being privileged, there is one major resounding difference.
I am aware of the ways in which I am privileged and have made it a personal quest to minimize my privilege as much as possible. It's a technique that I call, "How to not be a total fucking asshole." This is not to say that I don't fuck up, I do. I will act privileged, partially because the nature of privilege is to be invisible to those who benefit most from it.
Privilege, at its core, is the advantages that people benefit from based solely on their social status. It is a status that is conferred by society to certain groups, not seized by individuals, which is why it can be difficult sometimes to see one’s own privilege.
-Feminism 101 blog What is male privilege
However, I am open to being called on it, and I am willing to self-examine at any time to make sure that my words and actions match with a progressive attitude towards ending oppression. It's the least I can do to make up for the benefits I get because of my privilege.
I do not call myself an ally, I don't need to be put on a pedestal as a paragon of progressiveness. I am just a person, a privileged person, who has chosen not to be an asshole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)